APCS SIR Sect M.docx

Contents

M-9 Evaluation Factors for Award AMS Clauses AMS 3.1-1 Clause and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (July 2019) This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) or Contract Specialist (CS) will make the full text available, or Offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via the Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm.

Table M.1.1. - Clauses Incorporated by Reference

(End of Clause) Clauses and Provisions Incorporated in Full Text The version in effect on the date of the issuance of the Screening Information Request (SIR) release is applicable unless otherwise specifically noted.

AMS 3.11-49 Destination Unknown (April 1999) For the purpose of evaluating offers and for no other purpose, the final destination(s) for the supplies will be considered to be as follows: FOB Destination, inclusive of any customs or duties.

(End of Clause) Communication with Offerors In accordance with AMS Policy Section 3.2.2.3.1.2.2, Communications with Offerors, the purpose of communications is to ensure mutual understanding between FAA and Offerors about all aspects of the procurement, including the Offeror’s submittal/proposal. Communications with Offerors may take place throughout the source selection process, through contract award and following award as necessary. All communications will be documented and controlled in accordance with L.5.2 through the CO and/or the CS to ensure that Offerors are treated equitably. The following conditions apply to Offeror communications:

Communications with one Offeror does not require communications with any other Offeror.

The FAA communications may occur orally or in writing.

Offeror written responses to communication items may be considered in the evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal and serve as the basis for strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The FAA is not obligated to advise Offerors of weaknesses or risks identified in their proposals.

Any information provided in response to FAA-issued communications may be used in the evaluation of proposals.

The FAA reserves the right to conduct communications, discussions, and negotiations with any Offeror as it pertains to their offers. One-on-one communications may continue throughout the source selection process at the FAA’s discretion.

Evaluation Approach Source Selection Methodology

1. The APC System source selection is considered a complex source selection, as detailed in Acquisition Management System (AMS) Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3, Complex Source Selection.

The FAA Source Selection Evaluation Teams (SSET) and the Source Selection Official (SSO) will strive for maximum objectivity. However, the source selection process is by nature subjective and professional judgment will be applied, within the established criteria, throughout the entire process.

In performing the best value trade off analysis, the FAA will assess non-price factors as well as price based on the evaluation criteria established in Section M. The Offeror that represents the best value to FAA will be selected to receive the award. The FAA considers non-price strengths and weaknesses, risks, and price for each Offeror and applies business judgment to select the Offeror representing the best value. Reference Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3(A)(5)(1). The best value trade off methodology does not require that an award be made to the Offeror submitting the highest-rated Technical/Management solution or to the Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price as defined in Section M.5.5 and M.7.7. The FAA will base the best value decision on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal in accordance with all the criteria set forth in Section M.

Two-Phase Source Selection Procedure

1. The FAA will use a two-phase source selection procedure defined in FAA AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3(B)9. The Procurement Guidance uses the word “Phase” to refer to the two-phase source selection procedure, a word also used by the VoICE Program to refer to the different phases of the VoICE program (i.e., Phase 1 includes the APC/GPC System procurements, Phase 2 VCS procurements). To avoid confusion during the proposal and source selection process, the FAA has replaced the word “Phase” with “Stage” when referring to the two-phase source selection procedure for this procurement defined in Procurement Guidance T3.2.2.3(B)9.

The FAA has considered market research, costs associated with the Offerors’ proposal preparation and submission, and has weighed the benefits and risks associated with a single-staged, versus two-staged, source selection approach. A two-stage source selection allows only the most qualified Offerors to submit Stage 2 proposals. This benefits both the Offerors, in proposal preparation costs, and the FAA, in reducing risk associated with evaluating proposals that are unlikely to be eligible for award.

Stage 1 consists of two (2) evaluated areas; Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, and Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment (if necessary in accordance with Section M.5.1(c)). Stage 2 consists of seven (7) evaluated areas and represents a significantly more complex proposal submission requirement and FAA evaluation.

Offeror Stage 1 ratings are meant solely to determine which Offerors are invited to submit a proposal for Stage 2 and are not considered when determining the best value trade-off for award. Please refer to Appendix 1, APC Proposal Evaluation Process, for a visual depiction of the two-stage proposal evaluation process. If the process depicted in Appendix 1, APC Proposal Evaluation Process, differs from the process described in the narrative sections of the document, the narrative takes precedence over Appendix 1.

Standard Requirements for Award In addition to Volume IV, Business, the Stage 1 (including both Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, and Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment) and Stage 2 volumes of each Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed to determine whether the Offeror meets the requirements below. Omission of information or failure to fully conform to Section L requirements may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from award consideration.

Determination of Offeror Responsibility The CO will make a determination of Offeror responsibility in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 requirements and the requirements below. Any Offeror that the CO determines is not “responsible” (as defined in AMS Policy 3.2.2.2 and herein) will be ineligible for award. In addition to the Offeror’s proposal Volume IV Responsibility Determination Information (reference L.8.4), the FAA will investigate the profile of each Offeror through Dun and Bradstreet and other commonly used sources. To be eligible or award, the contractor must:

1. Have or be able to obtain adequate financial resources to perform a contract;

Have the ability to meet any required or proposed delivery or performance schedules;

Have a satisfactory performance record;

Have a satisfactory record of integrity and proper business ethics, and be able to meet the security requirements of FAA Order 1600.1F;

Have appropriate accounting and operational controls that may include, but are not limited to production control, property control systems, quality assurance programs, safety programs;

Have the necessary organization, experience, technical skills and facilities, and technical equipment or the ability to obtain them;

Have no unacceptable Organizational Conflicts of Interests (OCIs) or OCI Mitigation Plans. Determination of acceptability or unacceptability of potential OCIs and any associated OCI Mitigation Plans are made by the CO in accordance with AMS 3.1.7 "Organizational Conflicts of Interest” and applicable OCI clauses;

Have an Official able to commit the company; and, Be qualified and eligible to receive award under applicable laws and regulations.

Proposal Compliance Requirements

1. The FAA reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of any Offeror or Offeror’s subcontractor(s) if deemed necessary by the CO.

To be eligible for award, proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, and must conform to all the terms and conditions of the SIR. The FAA reserves the right to reject any proposal failing to comply with the requirements of Section L.

Submittals will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy and must contain the Offeror’s best technical, price and other than price terms necessary to determine reasonableness. The term “completeness” corresponds to whether the Offeror’s proposal complies with the SIR requirements at a high level. The term “accuracy” is the degree to which the proposal adheres to specific requirements of the SIR, such as specific font size and page limits. Offerors may be found ineligible for award if their proposals fail to conform to all terms and conditions of the SIR. If it is determined to be in its best interest, the FAA reserves the right to:

Reject any and all offers;

Waive any requirements; and, Accept minor irregularities and discrepancies.

Proposals that fail to meet the requirements of the SIR, or are unrealistic in terms of technical content or schedule commitments, or fail to identify and address risks of the contract requirements, may result in the Offeror being assessed as lacking technical competence. Failing to comprehend technical complexity may lead the FAA to conclude that the Offeror has an inadequate understanding of the requirements. Such failures will be reflected in weaknesses and risks. Evidence of an inadequate understanding of the requirement may result in a determination that the proposal is ineligible for any further evaluation and contract award.

Offerors are cautioned not to minimize the importance of an adequate response in any area because of importance or visibility. Offerors must furnish specific information in their response in accordance with instructions in Section L. If at any time during the evaluation process the FAA concludes that an Offeror is not likely to receive award, the FAA may eliminate the Offeror from further consideration for award.

Any Offeror eliminated from further consideration will be notified in writing.

Small Business Plan In order to be eligible for award, a non-Small Business Offeror that must submit a small business subcontracting plan that the CO determines (1) fulfills all requirements contained within AMS clause 3.6.1-4, Small, Small Disadvantaged, Woman-Owned, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and HUBZone Small Business Subcontracting Plan (April 2022); and (2) proposes goals that meet or exceed the established subcontracting goals as set forth in Section L.8.5.

Evaluation Factor/Subfactor Order of Importance For Stage 1, Tables M.4-1 and M.4-2 provide the rating methodology and order of importance.

Table M.4-1 Stage 1 Part A Rating Methodology

Any Offeror whose proposal fails to meet all three eligibility requirements will be eliminated from further consideration.

Table M.4-2 Stage 1 Part B Rating Methodology and Order of Importance Stage 1 Part B Rating Methodology and Order of Importance

For Stage 2, Table M.4-3 provides the rating methodology and order of importance.

For Stage 2, the Technical/Management evaluation consists of Factors 1-5, and the Past Performance evaluation is Factor 6. Factors 1-6 are significantly more important than Price. The closer the evaluation ratings are between Offerors for the Technical/Management and Past Performance Areas, the more important the Price becomes with respect to the best value determination.

Table M.4-3 Stage 2 Rating Methodology and Order of Importance Stage 2 Rating Methodology & Order of Importance

Stage 2 Subfactor 1.2 - System Functions

Subfactor 1.2 is less important than Subfactor 1.1, and more important than Subfactor 1.3

Stage 2 Subfactor 1.3 - Security and Software Interactive Activities

Subfactor 1.3 is less important than Subfactor 1.2, and more important than Subfactor 1.4

Stage 2 Subfactor 1.4 - APC System Plans, Human Factors Integration, and Loading/Throughput Timing Tool

Subfactor 1.4 is less important than Subfactor 1.3, and more important than Subfactor 1.5

Stage 2 Subfactor 1.5 - APC System ECPs

Less important than Subfactor 1.4

Stage 2 Subfactor 2.2 - Training

Stage 2 Subfactor 2.3 - Logistics Integrated Support Plan and Processes

Stage 2 Subfactor 3.2 – Test Tools and Accreditation Strategy

Stage 2 Subfactor 4.2 - Program Control

Stage 2 Subfactor 5.2 - Deployment

Table M.4-4 Stage 2 Simplified Order of Importance

Proposal Evaluation Process and Definitions Proposal Evaluation - General

1. Stage 1 Part A and Stage 1 Part B include the following evaluations:

Determination of Offeror Responsibility and Proposal Compliance Check (reference M.3.3.2) Part A - Eligibility Requirements Assessment (reference M.6.2) Part B - Technical Assessment (reference M.6.3) (the FAA will only perform the Stage 1 Part B evaluation if necessary in accordance with M.5.1(c)) Stage 2 includes the following evaluations (reference M.7):

Determination of Offeror Responsibility and Proposal Compliance Check (reference M.3.3.2) Factor 1 - System Engineering and Technical Solution (reference M.7.1) Factor 2 - Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) (reference M.7.2) Factor 3 - Test and Evaluation (T&E) (reference M.7.3) Factor 4 - Program Management (reference M.7.4) Factor 5 - Production and Deployment (reference M.7.5) Factor 6 - Past Performance (reference M.7.6) Price (reference M.7.7) The selection of the Offerors to participate in Stage 2 will be based on the Stage 1 evaluation criteria, which will identify the Offerors most likely to receive the award. The FAA intends to limit Stage 2 participation to no more than four (4) Offerors. A selection of Offerors eligible for participation in Stage 2 may be made at the conclusion of Stage 1, Part A if four (4) or fewer Offerors are determined to have passed all three eligibility requirements in Stage 1, Part A. Otherwise, if more than four (4) Offerors are determined to have passed all three eligibility requirements in Stage 1, Part A, the FAA will perform the Stage 1, Part B evaluation, and the selection of Offerors eligible for participation in Stage 2 will be made at the conclusion of Stage 1, Part B.

Offerors will be notified as to whether or not they have been selected to continue to Stage 2. The FAA will request that selected Offerors submit a proposal in accordance with L.5 and L.7. Selected Offerors are required to deliver a previously developed product (PDP) system on which the APC System will be based, along with associated equipment and ancillary test capability, to the William J Hughes Technical center in Atlantic City, NJ. The FAA will evaluate the proposals and the PDP on which the APC System will be based. The PDP will be used for the evaluation in accordance with M.7.1.

In comparing and assessing the evaluation findings, the SSO will make an informed, fair, and reasoned business decision.

Evaluation by Non-Government Personnel

1. Offerors are advised that personnel from the Contractor list in Table M.5.2., Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support, may assist the FAA during the FAA’s evaluation of proposals. These Contractors are restricted by the Organizational Conflict of Interest provision of their respective contracts and a Non-Disclosure Agreement. The Non-Disclosure Agreement will be executed by each individual from these Contractor organizations prior to evaluation support. Such personnel may participate in evaluating, specifically providing technical, past performance, and/or cost evaluation and analysis support.

The Offeror agrees, by the submission of a proposal, to have its proposal reviewed by these Contractors for the purpose of providing support to the FAA unless Offeror provides objections to such disclosure as follows. Offeror must submit any objections to disclosures as described: (1) the objection must be provided in writing to both the CO and the CS, prior to the date set for receipt of the Stage 1 proposals, and subsequently as applicable; and (2) include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. If the Offeror fails to object in accordance with the preceding sentence, they will be deemed to have no objection.

During the evaluation of proposals the FAA may have need support from companies other than those listed in Table M.5.2, Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support. If so, the CO or the CS will provide written notice to the Offeror, referring to this paragraph, identifying the company(ies) involved, and notifying the Offeror to provide any objection to disclosure of information within 48 hours of the time the disclosure is sent. If the Offeror fails to object in accordance with the preceding sentence, the Offeror will be deemed to have no objection.

Table M.5.2. Potential Non-Government Advisors/Support Company

Advanced Sciences and Technologies (AS&T)

ASRC Federal

Capital Group

CEXEC, Inc.

Changeis, Inc.

Chesapeake Consulting, Inc.

COBEC Consulting

Cynthia Valdes LLC

IT Strategy, Inc.

LS Technologies, LLC

MITRE

Noblis, Inc.

The SEMCON Group, LLC

Solentus

SysNet Corporation

Veracity Engineering

Stage 1, Part B & Stage 2, Factors 1 through 5

1. The FAA will use the definitions within this section to establish adjectival rating and document the strengths, weaknesses, and risks for Stage 1 Part B (if necessary) and Stage 2 Factors 1 through 5.

The FAA will invite Offerors to participate in Stage 2 in accordance with Section L.7. The FAA will evaluate Stage 2 Factors 1 through 5 through evaluation of the written submission and in-person, “interactive” assessment, as described in M.5 and M.7. The interactive activities (reference L.5.5) will include a Software Safety Process Assessment (reference M.7.1.3) at the Offeror’s facility, an assessment of the PDP at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) with both Offeror and FAA conducted activities, and a detailed assessment of the state of the PDP Manuals (reference M.7.2).

The FAA will consider the results of interactive activities in the associated Subfactor level rating. If the FAA identifies a specific aspect of a written proposal or a response to a communication item that is assessed in the interactive activity, it will be evaluated as a single feature and not multiple features. Strengths, weaknesses and risks will be applied in the same manner. That is, if the FAA identifies a specific feature of a written proposal or a response to a communication item that is assessed as a strength and the same aspect is observed and rated in an interactive activity independently, the rating will reflect a single strength, not multiple strengths. Likewise, weaknesses and risks will be applied in the same manner.

Should a Factor include one or more subfactors that have one or more interactive activities, the subfactor rating will include consideration of the interactive activity, and thus it will be considered when determining the overall individual Factor rating in accordance with the order of importance.

Technical/Management evaluators will review Technical Bases of Estimate (BOEs) submitted per the instructions in Section L.7 and information contained within the Technical BOEs may also serve as the basis for the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and risks.

The Technical/Management volume has five (5) individual sections, which align to the Technical/Management Factors. Each Factor has its own Subfactors. The Subfactor ratings are the basis for the associated Factor rating. The FAA will consider the combined impact of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks across all Subfactors within the Factor to determine the Factor-level rating.

The FAA will assign ratings using its professional judgment and based on the order of importance.

When determining a Stage 1 Part B or Stage 2 Factor or Subfactor rating, the FAA will review all associated strengths, weaknesses, and risks and determine which have the greatest impact. The rating will be determined based on the combined impact of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks and not on the quantity of strengths, weaknesses, or risks.

Adjectival Rating Definitions - Stage 1 Part B and Stage 2 Factors 1 through 5

Definitions of Strengths, Weaknesses, and Risk - Stage 1 Part B and Stage 2 Factors 1 through 5

Stage 2, Factor 6 - Past Performance The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Past Performance record and assign a confidence rating based on the definitions in Table M.7.6.7. The confidence rating represents the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of an Offeror’s successful performance under the APC System contract based on its record of Past Performance.

Stage 2, Price The FAA will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with AMS Policy 3.2.3 and AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.3 and as set forth in Section M.7.7. The FAA will not record or assign ratings to the Offeror’s Price Proposals.

Evaluation Criteria Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, and Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment (reference L.6) The evaluation approach defined in M.3, Evaluation Approach, and M.4, Evaluation Factor/Subfactor Order of Importance, are established to ensure selection of the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government, and subsequently, the most likely Offeror to successfully deploy the APC System not later than November 2025. The FAA requires a currently-developed stable product on which to base an APC System, and the established evaluation criteria reflect this requirement. The product, on which the APC System solution will be based, must already have the ability to communicate over the Wide Area Network (WAN) via ED-137, Volume 1 VoIP, and have mature manuals and training. The FAA anticipates the need to develop some external analog interfaces to allow connection to the FAA voice switches and the FAA radios. The FAA also anticipates the analog link between the local and remote APCs will need to be developed; however, the FAA intends to defer development and testing of the analog WAN link until after ISD is accomplished. Similarly, because of the delayed need for the capability, the FAA intends to defer development and testing of some other technical requirements, including the Local Legacy Radio APC (LLR-APC) functionality and IPv6 capability, until after ISD.

Summary Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, and Part B Technical Assessment Evaluation Process (reference L.6.1) This section provides a summary of the Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, and Part B, Technical Assessment, evaluation process. The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment submission, and Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment, submission (if necessary), which must comply with the requirements of Section L.6.

The Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment, evaluation consists of three (3) pass/fail criteria:

Compliant Previously-Developed Product (PDP);

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Certification; and, Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights.

If at the end of Stage 1 Part A four or fewer Offerors are determined to have passed all criteria of Stage 1 Part A, the Stage 1, Part B evaluation may not be conducted. If more than four Offerors are determined to have passed all criteria of Stage 1 Part A, the FAA will evaluate successful offers in Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment, based on the criteria described in M.6.3. The Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment, evaluation consists of three (3) adjectivally-rated Subfactors:

Software Documents;

Determination of Scalability; and, Maturity of Previously Developed Product Manuals and Training.

Offerors will be notified of the status of their offers at the completion of the Stage 1 evaluation.

Stage 1 Part A, Eligibility Requirements Assessment (Pass/Fail) (reference L.6.2) Compliant Previously-Developed Product (PDP) (reference L.6.2.1)

1. For the purpose of this evaluation, the FAA will use the following definition:

A PDP is defined as:

· A product that has been developed for sale, lease or license and sold in substantial quantities of identical units in the aviation communication marketplace, supported and evolved by the vendor who retains the Intellectual Property (IP) rights, and is currently available;

· Is ED-137, Volume 1-compliant; and,

· Is in use by a major Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) in an FAA National Airspace System-like environment.

A National Airspace System (NAS)-like environment is defined as: An environment where the primary use of the PDP is for Air Traffic Control Specialists to authorize Air Traffic Control Clearances and authorize the separation of aircraft from obstructions.

An Air Traffic Control Clearance is defined as: An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft or for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace.

An Offeror’s PDP, as defined above, will be considered acceptable if it has also been subsequently modified to meet FAA APC System requirements.

The FAA will evaluate whether an Offeror’s proposed PDP is ED-137, Volume 1-compliant and is in use by a major ANSP in a NAS-like environment. Offerors’ solutions that support other services, such as Flight Services, advisory services, relaying of Air Traffic Control Clearances, or emergency Call Center Services, but whose primary use is not the authorization of Air Traffic Control Clearances and the separation of aircraft from obstructions, will not meet the compliance requirements stated below. The FAA will assign a rating of Pass if the FAA determines that the Offeror’s proposed PDP:

1. Is a product that has been developed for sale, lease or license and sold in substantial quantities of identical units in the aviation communication marketplace, supported and evolved by the vendor who retains the Intellectual Property (IP) rights, and is currently available;

2. Is ED-137, Volume 1-compliant;

3. Is in use by a major ANSP in an FAA NAS-like environment; and,

4. Is being used by that ANSP in a manner that is consistent with the FAA’s intended use for the APC System (i.e., its primary use is by Air Traffic Control Specialists to authorize Air Traffic Control Clearances and authorize the separation of aircraft from obstructions).

The FAA will assign a rating of Fail if the Offeror’s proposed PDP does not meet all of the criteria above.

An Offeror’s PDP that meets all four requirements above will still receive a rating of “Pass” if it has also been subsequently modified to meet FAA APC System requirements.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Certification (reference L.6.2.2)

1. The FAA is prohibited from entering into, extending, or renewing, a contract with an entity that proposes to use any equipment, system, or service during the performance of the contract or otherwise uses covered telecommunications equipment or services, as defined by SIR clause 3.6.4-23 Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. The FAA will not seek a waiver for this procurement.

The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s representation in SIR clause 3.6.4-22, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment, and SIR clause 3.6.4-24, Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services- Representation, as submitted in response to the SIR.

The FAA will assign a rating of Pass only if:

1. The Offeror selects “does not” in response to paragraphs (c) (1) and (c) (2) of provision 3.6.4-24 “Covered Telecommunications or Services – Representation”;

or

2. The Offeror selects “will not” in response to paragraph (d) (1) of provision 3.6.4-22, “Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment,” and selects “does not” in response to paragraph (d) (2) of provision 3.6.4-22, “Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment.”

The FAA will assign a rating of Fail if the Offeror does not meet the criteria above.

Determination of Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights (reference L.6.2.3)

1. The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s Certification of Intellectual Property Ownership (Attachment L.6) to determine if the intellectual property rights in and to the PDP are owned exclusively by the Offeror’s proposed APC System team. For purposes of this Section M.6.2.3, “the Offeror’s proposed APC System team” means the Prime Offeror and any entities or subcontractors with which the Prime Offeror has established a Team Arrangement for the APC System contract as defined in AMS clause 3.2.2.7-8.

1. Each Offeror must identify in Section 3 of the Certification of Intellectual Property Ownership (Attachment L.6) all system components of the PDP that fall outside of the exclusive ownership of the Offeror’s proposed APC System team, including, without limitation, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products that are available to be purchased or licensed by the general public in the commercial marketplace, such as Microsoft products, and open source software. The FAA will validate that any hardware or software system component listed in Section 3 that is identified as COTS or open source software by the Offeror is indeed available to be purchased or licensed by the general public in the commercial marketplace. The FAA may use the FAA CDRL/DID APC-SW004, Software Configuration Index (SCI) provided in response to Stage 1, Part B to validate the Certification of Intellectual Property Ownership.

Hardware and software system components that are COTS products that are available to be purchased or licensed by the general public in the commercial marketplace, such as Microsoft products, or open source software, such as Linux, will not impact the FAA’s Intellectual Property ownership determination with respect to the PDP. The FAA will validate that such products are available to be purchased or licensed by the general public. Any other system component for which the Offeror’s proposed APC System Team cannot certify ownership, or which the FAA cannot validate will impact the FAA’s determination as to the Offeror’s Team’s ownership of the Intellectual Property rights for the PDP.

The FAA will assign a rating of Pass only if the FAA determines that the Offeror’s proposed APC System team exclusively owns the intellectual property rights for the PDP, excluding hardware or software system components that are determined to be COTS or open source software. The FAA will assign a rating of Fail if the FAA determines that the Offeror does not meet the criteria in the preceding sentence.

Stage 1 Part B - Technical Assessment (Adjectivally Evaluated) (reference L.6.3) The Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment, includes three (3) Subfactors. If the Stage 1, Part B evaluation is conducted, Technical Assessment Subfactors will be evaluated individually using the rating definitions in Section M.5.3. The Subfactor ratings will be considered collectively to determine the overall Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment, Factor rating. Each of the three assessments will be considered of equal importance for determining the overall Stage 1 Part B, Technical Assessment rating.

Factor 1 - Software Documents (reference L.6.3.1) The FAA will evaluate the vendor’s software documents against the following three FAA-provided APC System Data Item Descriptions (DIDs). The FAA will evaluate the degree to which:

1. The submitted Software Configuration Index (SCI) and completed SCI Template address the requirements defined in FAA CDRL/DID APC-SW004, Software Configuration Index (SCI), excluding Sections 1 (Scope) and 2 (Reference Documents) and any subsections therein.

The submitted Software Process Gap Analysis (SPGA) and completed SPGA template address the requirements defined FAA CDRL/DID APC-SW003, Software Process Gap Analysis (SPGA), excluding Sections 1 (Scope) and 2 (Reference Documents) and any subsections therein.

The submitted Plan for Software Aspects of Approval addresses the requirements defined in FAA CDRL/DID APC-SW001, Plan for Software Aspects of Approval (PSAA), excluding Sections 1 (Scope) and 2 (Reference Documents) and any subsections therein.

Factor 2 - Determination of Scalability (reference L.6.3.2) The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the architecture of the Offeror’s PDP is scalable across the range of facility sizes defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Section 3.5.2, System Size and Capacity, and Table 3-6 - APC System Operational Environments while considering the impact to system, performance, functionality, and system footprint.

Factor 3 - Maturity of Previously-Developed Product Manual(s) and Training (reference L.6.3.3) The FAA will perform an assessment of the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the Offeror’s previously-developed technical manual(s) and training materials for the PDP. The FAA will evaluate how well the manual(s) and training materials enable the basic ability to operate and maintain the system.

Evaluation Criteria Stage 2, Factors 1 Through 6 and Price The Stage 2 evaluation includes six (6) Factors plus price. Volume I, Technical/Management is comprised of Factors 1 through 5. Volume II, Past Performance is comprised of Factor 6. Factors 1 through 5 each have multiple Subfactors. Subfactors will be evaluated individually using the rating definitions in Section M.5.3. The Subfactor ratings will be considered collectively to determine the Factor ratings in accordance with the order of importance set forth in M.4.

Factor 1 - System Engineering and Technical Solution (reference L.7.1) The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s plan/strategy, PDP, and proposed solution address the technical requirements described in the areas below and whether the proposed solution is consistent with both the Offeror’s BOE and draft IMS and is achievable within the timeframe identified in SIR Section F.6.

Subfactor 1.1 APC System Architecture and Stability (reference L.7.1.1) The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the APC System’s hardware architecture, software architecture, and processes support delivery of an effective, stable system consistent with both the Offeror’s BOE and draft IMS and within the timeframe identified in SIR Section F.6.

As part of the evaluation, the FAA will consider the Offeror’s technical BOE, draft IMS schedule, proposed section F.6 milestones, the Offeror’s proposal, and the results of the interactive PDP stability assessment. The FAA has provided illustrative examples in Sections M.7.1.1.1 through M.7.1.1.5 of items it may consider with respect to the evaluation of this subfactor. The FAA may consider all, some or none of the illustrative examples in Sections M.7.1.1.1 through M.7.1.1.5. The illustrative examples are not a complete list of items the FAA may consider in its evaluation of this subfactor, nor is there any actual or implied order of importance of the illustrative examples. Ultimately, all strengths, weakness and risks associated with this subfactor will be assigned against the evaluation criteria in the paragraph directly above.

System Design Examples:

1. How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports the requirements of Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, with the exceptions of the Analog Transport areas, the LLR-APC functions, and the ED-137C Volume I Clarification Matrix Appendix (Section 7), and the features below in f), g), and h).

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture and processes support the requirements of Attachment J.1.2, APC System Software Requirements.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture and processes support the requirements of Attachment J.1.3, APC System Security Requirements.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports the requirements of Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, ED-137C Volume I Clarification Matrix Appendix (Section 7).

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports additional features and capabilities that provide benefit to the FAA.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture meets or exceeds the reliability and inherent availability A (i) requirements of Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Section 3.4.2, Availability.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture ensures continued operation of Air Traffic Control (ATC) in the event of partial or complete failure of the local Management System.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports the operation of eight (8) remote radios per remote gateway.

System Flexibility and Scalability Examples:

1. How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture provides the flexibility and adaptability required to evolve and support future requirements (with the exceptions of the Analog Transport areas and the LLR-APC functions) as concept of operations mature.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture provides the flexibility to allow modifications and updates to the system design with minimal impact to NAS operations.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture provides the flexibility to efficiently support customizable functions (e.g., the degree to which the architecture supports changing function and configuration settings).

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture provides the flexibility to effectively support the customization of Graphical User Interface.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture provides the flexibility to effectively support operations in a legacy communications environment while allowing the migration of communications capabilities from legacy to Voice over IP (VoIP) connections.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture is scalable across the range of facility sizes while considering impact to system performance, functionality, and system footprint.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture efficiently supports APC System expansion at a control facility with minimal impact to operations.

System Performance Examples:

1. How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports the performance requirements defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Section 3.2, Performance Requirements, for the range of facility sizes.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture supports the performance requirements defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Section 3.2, Performance Requirements, Table 3-6, APC System Operational environments, for scenarios utilizing network functions for multiple simultaneous connections such as asset sharing.

Solution Maturity and Offeror Understanding Examples:

1. How well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the effort required to provide the APC System architecture.

How well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the architecture required to provide an APC System solution suitable for NAS operation.

How well the Offeror’s proposed architecture has been proven in a NAS-like environment, per the definition in M.6.2.

Interactive PDP Stability Assessment Examples:

The FAA will consider, including but not limited to, the following:

1. How well the Offeror’s PDP meets the traffic load in accordance with the requirements identified in Attachment L.7, APC System PDP Stability Assessment Requirements.

How well the Offeror’s PDP meets the Stability requirements of Attachment L.7, APC System PDP Stability Assessment Requirements.

Subfactor 1.2 System Functions (reference L.7.1.2) The FAA will use the Offeror’s completed PDP Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix (VRTM) (Attachment L.8, PDP Verification Requirements Traceability Matrix) in conjunction with the interactive assessments to determine the amount of development required to provide a solution compliant with the technical requirements of the SIR (except the items already associated with ECPs). The FAA will use the completed PDP VRTM to identify requirements to be demonstrated during the interactive PDP Functional Assessment by selecting a subset from the set of requirements for which the Offeror is claiming compliance. The FAA will provide the subset of selected requirements to the Offeror after completion of delivery of the PDP to the FAA test facility in Atlantic City, NJ. The Offeror will use its PDP test procedures (as identified in the VRTM) to execute the interactive functional assessment.

NOTE: See Section L.7.1.2. The VRTM will list all APC System technical requirements with the Offeror identifying which of the FAA’s requirements are met by the PDP. The FAA is providing a template for the VRTM with a column for the Offeror to indicate PDP compliance and a column for the Offeror to indicate the PDP test procedure that will demonstrate compliance. The Offeror will go through the list of requirements and indicate for each whether its PDP meets the FAA requirement. Where the Offeror indicates that its proposed PDP meets a technical requirement, the Offeror must provide a PDP test procedure number that was used to validate the requirement. The FAA will provide the Offeror a subset of those requirements for which compliance is claimed after completion of installation of the PDP to the FAA test facility in Atlantic City, NJ. The Offeror will execute each PDP test procedure during the Interactive Functional PDP assessment to validate compliance on the identified subset of requirements. The Offeror will redline any changes to the test procedures required to allow execution and document the test results in the PDP test procedures as “as-runs”. The Offeror’s test lead will sign the PDP test procedure after execution of each procedure.

The FAA will evaluate the degree to which the current capabilities of the PDP (including items identified as compliant in the PDP VRTM combined with the results of the Interactive Assessments), in conjunction with the proposed approach to providing the fully-compliant APC System solution (i.e., solution fully compliant with all VRTM items except the items already associated with ECPs), support the delivery of an effective system compliant with all technical requirements in the SIR consistent with both the Offeror’s BOE and draft IMS and within the timeframe identified in SIR Section F.6.

As part of the evaluation, the FAA will consider the Offeror’s technical BOE, draft IMS schedule, proposed section F.6 milestones, the Offeror’s proposal, the results of the Interactive PDP Functional Assessment, and the results of the Interactive PDP ED-137C, Volume 1 Compliance Assessment. The FAA has provided illustrative examples in Sections M.7.1.2.1 through M.7.1.2.6 of items it may consider with respect to the evaluation of this subfactor. The FAA may consider all, some or none of the illustrative examples in Sections M.7.1.2.1 through M.7.1.2.6. The illustrative examples are not a complete list of items the FAA may consider in its evaluation of this subfactor, nor is there any actual or implied order of importance of the illustrative examples. Ultimately, all strengths, weakness and risks associated with this subfactor will be assigned against the evaluation criteria in the paragraph directly above.

PDP VRTM Examples:

1. How well the PDP VRTM effectively supports L-APC Functions as defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Sections 3.1.2.

How well the PDP VRTM effectively supports R-APC Functions as defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Sections 3.1.3.

How well the PDP VRTM provides effective local maintenance, monitoring, and configuration control.

How well the PDP VRTM effectively supports local Management functions.

How well the PDP VRTM effectively supports the requirements of Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Section 7, ED-137C Volume I Clarification Matrix Appendix.

Interactive PDP Functional Assessment Examples:

1. How well the PDP effectively supports L-APC Functions as defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System Technical Specification, Sections 3.1.2.

How well the PDP effectively supports R-APC Functions as defined in Attachment J.1.1, APC System…